Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40003934›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2025

Gene Therapy: An Historical Overview for Familial Hearing Loss.

O'neil W Guthrie

Abstract readReviewHistorical Article
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Therapeutic Potential of 1‑(1,2,3,5,6,7-Hexahydro‑ACS pharmacology & translational science · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

O'neil W GuthrieCell & Molecular Pathology Laboratory, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gene therapy is a promising molecular approach for the management of familial hearing loss. This type of molecular therapy is the physical manifestation of genetic determinism-the notion that individual genes cause individual phenotypes. The current composition weaves through various branches of the biomedical sciences to uncover the molecular biologic premise for genetic determinism and the impetus behind gene therapy. Consequently, it is revealed that the underlying molecular biologic premise was scaffolded on successful observations from simple biologic assays that were devoid of the complexities of human disease biology. Furthermore, modern successful gene therapies are largely driven by commercial and academic incentives at the cost of scientific rigor. This poses several perverse challenges for patients, clinicians and the public at large. Issues concerning safety, efficacy, and ethics are far from resolved despite regulatory agency approvals, the media's bias for gene therapy and the many lucrative investor positions. Lastly, the therapeutic claims regarding gene therapy are the most ambitious claims made within the hearing sciences. Therefore, scientists, clinicians, and patients must be equipped with the tools needed to appropriately consume and appraise such claims. These and other issues are also directly addressed, with the aim of providing a realistic sense of whether current human gene therapies are ready to be positioned within our routine clinical armamentarium against hearing loss.

Indexed as

Genetic TherapyHearing LossAnimalsHistory, 20th CenturyHistory, 21st CenturyHumanscongenitalCRISPR-Cas9deafnesseargene editinggenetichearinghereditarysensorineuraltreatment

Identifiers

PMID40003934
PMCPMC11855000

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.